@@ 9,54 9,54 @@ Anonymously retweeting a Twitter thread, which despite its truth got harassed in
<blockquote>
"Safari is buggy" is a valid criticism.
<p>"Safari is buggy" is a valid criticism.</p>
"Safari is behind Chrome in features" is not a valid criticism.
<p>"Safari is behind Chrome in features" is not a valid criticism.</p>
Never forget that the browser vendors, including Google and Apple, seized control of the web from the W3C. These few companies have too much power over the web, period.
<p>Never forget that the browser vendors, including Google and Apple, seized control of the web from the W3C. These few companies have too much power over the web, period.</p>
---
<hr />
The web has massive feature bloat. It's a privacy and security nightmare.
<p>The web has massive feature bloat. It's a privacy and security nightmare.</p>
I personally think we should abolish JavaScript and not allow arbitrary remotely loaded code to execute on our computers.
<p>I personally think we should abolish JavaScript and not allow arbitrary remotely loaded code to execute on our computers.</p>
"I want web sites to do everything a native app can do" is a suicidal mistake.
<p>"I want web sites to do everything a native app can do" is a suicidal mistake.</p>
---
<hr />
The more features that are added to the web, the less browser competition is possible! This is essential to recognize.
<p>The more features that are added to the web, the less browser competition is possible! This is essential to recognize.</p>
And Google knows it! That's the whole point.
<p>And Google knows it! That's the whole point.</p>
Who can keep up with Google? Mozilla can't. Apple can't. Even Microsoft threw in the towel and adopted Chromium.
<p>Who can keep up with Google? Mozilla can't. Apple can't. Even Microsoft threw in the towel and adopted Chromium.</p>
---
<hr />
Imagine a small company trying to write their own web browser from scratch nowadays. It's just not possible! The web is so complex, there's no choice but to adopt one of the few existing browser engines: Chromium, WebKit, Gecko. That's it. The competitive landscape is bleak.
<p>Imagine a small company trying to write their own web browser from scratch nowadays. It's just not possible! The web is so complex, there's no choice but to adopt one of the few existing browser engines: Chromium, WebKit, Gecko. That's it. The competitive landscape is bleak.</p>
---
<hr />
"Everyone has to adopt Chromium" is exactly Google's plan.
<p>"Everyone has to adopt Chromium" is exactly Google's plan.</p>
Who controls the dominant browser engine controls the web.
<p>Who controls the dominant browser engine controls the web.</p>
---
<hr />
In a sense, there's no point in even having "web standards" anymore.
<p>In a sense, there's no point in even having "web standards" anymore.</p>
Web standards theoretically allow *anybody* to implement a browser engine. But if the "standards" are sufficiently huge, then practically *nobody* can implement a browser engine.
<p>Web standards theoretically allow *anybody* to implement a browser engine. But if the "standards" are sufficiently huge, then practically *nobody* can implement a browser engine.</p>
---
<hr />
I've personally implemented software from scratch using RFC as a guide, in several different areas.
<p>I've personally implemented software from scratch using RFC as a guide, in several different areas.</p>
But a web browser engine? Forget it!
<p>But a web browser engine? Forget it!</p>
The "standards" now are nothing more than Chromium, WebKit, Gecko, and their individual quirks. How can there be a new engine?
<p>The "standards" now are nothing more than Chromium, WebKit, Gecko, and their individual quirks. How can there be a new engine?</p>
---
<hr />
The web is not "open" if nobody new can write a web browser engine. It's the illusion of openness.
<p>The web is not "open" if nobody new can write a web browser engine. It's the illusion of openness.</p>
</blockquote>